If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Ok, link me to it. I don't have to have an updated version unless your stance has changed, do I? I have never heard your reasoning on the matter.

Here. This is the one I feel I presented it in the best way, but it was in a PM so I have to C+P it.

Originally Posted by ansem the wise

Its a Long story but here it is:
Yes I am religious, but I didn't get that way "Because my parents were" as you say. I studied this topic for over 10 years, taking into consideration every source i could find, and this is the conclusion I came to.

Yes I believe the bible when it comes to things like homosexuality. Why? Well, the main question is: Why should we trust the bible?

I thought about this in a little bit of a backwards way, but whatever.
The way I see it, if god doesn't exist, then we don't have to listen to the bible correct? Now one of the ways I use to prove the existence of god is Evolution vs Creation. Think of it this way: If life came about by evolution or chance, that would tell us nothing about the existence of god, because some may argue that he used evolution to put us here. But if life came about by creation, then the obvious next question "Who created it?"

Now, feel free to debate with me on Evolution vs Creation.

Now, assuming that Creation is proven, then the next question must be examined. Some may say god, I have had someone say aliens before, but then, what created them?

So assuming that there is a god, then, there are still hundreds of thousands of religions in the world, with different rules, values etc.

So then, which religion could you trust?

If you were to examine the bible you would see many things that are not found elsewhere, and things that stand out so much that it would be idiotic not at least give it a look. I'll list a few

Deuteronomy 23:13
As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement.

Now, this may induce a chuckle in some people, but think about it for a minute. Humans did not know that excrement had bacteria etc in it, especially at the time this was written. In fact, at the time this was written, the Egyptians were using stool for medical purposes...They would mix it with water and put it on their face in hopes of relieving blisters. And Egypt was one of the most advanced races of the time, and they didn't even know to get rid of their crap. Yet the bible clearly states the best way to handle human waste at the time.

Another one:

Isaiah 40:22
It is God who sits above the circle of the earth.

Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.

In both of these, there are facts about the earth itself. The fact that it is round, not flat as the common thought of the time was, and that it was suspended in empty space, not on the back of a turtle, another common idea of the time.

I can list many more.

One other thing is that when it comes to the history that was written in the bible, historians and archaeologists have proven it accurate. And while most nations who wrote down history of their nation, omitted their losses in battle the bible does not.

I can go on.

So, the way I see it, is if a person can trust the things that come out of it that can be proven, then it has probable cause to be trusted in areas that cannot be proven.

Originally Posted by The Federation

I was trying my best to designate homosexual sex rather than homosexual interaction of a lesser nature. The point was that there was less damage in shopping than the act of sex.

Ok, if I understand this correctly, you are just stating that going the extra step to sex- while other lesser homosexual events have already taken place- is not detrimental?

Not saying its not 100% un-detrimental, but yes, I must agree with you there.

See, the thing is. Homosexual is a word, and words can be misapplied, or given the idea that it means something slightly different. The way I see it, the very word homosexual, is used in a way that doesn't make as much sense as it should.

I am of the view that when defining someone as being homosexual, they should be engaging in homosexual ACTS (as mentioned in an earlier post). Not for having Homosexual impulses....sorry if that doesn't make much sense.

Originally Posted by The Federation

My bad, I read the last sentence of your last post incorrectly. I thought it said something at a glance that it didn't. Sorry.

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
If you have a question about my religion, or wish to discuss my religion, the Bible, or anything related to this topic, feel free to PM or VM me, take a look at the information in my profile or visit our official website.

To be up-front, I am homosexual and I am atheist, if you choose to judge me on that then that is on you.

I do feel that there is something biological behind, some not all, homosexuality.

I hear, or see rather, a lot of talk about impulses, well an impulse is medically defined in some cases as 'a propensity or natural tendency usually with no rational reason behind it.'

We know, or at least have some good ideas, that there is in some cases a biological cause for some murderers to perform such acts, this can also be said for some over-eaters, and many other issues and acts. I'm not saying that free-will isn't a factor and that the vast majority of the time people do choose to perform such acts, but I would just like to get it out there that there is a possible biological link to many things we consider "choices" and that we are helpless but to act upon them.

2. See, this is a major reason so many people are against or apathetic (most people falling into the latter) with regards to homosexuality and its issues. The arrogance and extent of viciousness makes you just as bad and intolerant as those you consider yourself better than.

I am only intolerant of bigotry. "I don't like teh gays so therefore I shall fight to deny them rights!" is not an opinion I take seriously or even consider.

Opinions can be wrong. That opinion is one of them.

There are perfectly logical reasons for people to oppose gay marriage.

No there are not. I implore you to post a logical reason.

Also as a hint, Religious reasoning is inherently irrational and illogical. So don't even try it.

1. Not wanting gay marriage is not equivalent to hating gay people.

No. But people not wanting gay marriage are irrelevant as they are not forced to marry gays. If I was against body piercings on the basis of a religious belief should we ban body piercings to appease me despite the fact I will not be forced to get one? Should my beliefs control how others live their lives?

There is only one answer here. No.

Christians do not own marriage. They have no right to deny people things based on their own beliefs especially when it does not affect them.

Here. This is the one I feel I presented it in the best way, but it was in a PM so I have to C+P it.

I'll respond to it line by line, but you don't have to respond. If I sound like I'm chiding you, I'm not, I just have a deeply ingrained hatred of religion due to my observation of its effects throughout my life.

Its a Long story but here it is:
Yes I am religious, but I didn't get that way "Because my parents were" as you say. I studied this topic for over 10 years, taking into consideration every source i could find, and this is the conclusion I came to.

Cool, I'm an atheist who has studied for about 6-7 years, and I have come to an anti-theistic position instead. I'm in school to become a molecular biologist, so it's a bit cliché, but it's what I love.

Yes I believe the bible when it comes to things like homosexuality. Why? Well, the main question is: Why should we trust the bible?

You shouldn't, even in most of its more objective, historical premises. Some of it is accurate in accounting for the time period, but most is useless if the subject is fact.

The way I see it, if god doesn't exist, then we don't have to listen to the bible correct? Now one of the ways I use to prove the existence of god is Evolution vs Creation. Think of it this way: If life came about by evolution or chance, that would tell us nothing about the existence of god, because some may argue that he used evolution to put us here. But if life came about by creation, then the obvious next question "Who created it?"

Evolution v. Creation is not a debate. There are no reputable scientists who support creation as a scientific explanation, and there aren't any open peer-reviewed journals that verify creationist contentions. Furthermore, evolution and creation aren't dichotomous; if evolution was proven wrong today, right now, it wouldn't verify creation. Even if creation was proven, there's no reason to assume it was a Christian God who did the creating.

Now, feel free to debate with me on Evolution vs Creation.

Anytime. PM me.

Now, assuming that Creation is proven, then the next question must be examined. Some may say god, I have had someone say aliens before, but then, what created them?

Panspermia is an option, which could mean a sentient seeding, but the fact remains that we don't know how life began from non-life. Inserting God where there is no knowledge is the quintessential argument from ignorance, called the "God of the gaps", sliding in mysticism where objective knowledge doesn't exist. Who says aliens, given that hypothesis is true, needed a creator? We still have possible abiogenesis.

If you were to examine the bible you would see many things that are not found elsewhere,

The Quran has things not found in the Bible. Eastern mysticism brought philosophy to a previously knowledge-barren religious plane. The Bible is one of the lesser mystic books when it comes to originality.

Humans did not know that excrement had bacteria etc in it, especially at the time this was written.
Yet the bible clearly states the best way to handle human waste at the time.

Maybe because it smells really bad. If I were outside in the heat, covering my poop would be natural. There's nothing to suggest they had a clue about bacteria using that passage.

In both of these, there are facts about the earth itself. The fact that it is round, not flat as the common thought of the time was, and that it was suspended in empty space, not on the back of a turtle, another common idea of the time.

You know what the ultimate irony there is? Those quotes were famously utilized to prove the Earth was flat. Stretched out like a circle? Stretched flat over nothing? This is observer's bias, trying to look for things that aren't there.

One other thing is that when it comes to the history that was written in the bible, historians and archaeologists have proven it accurate. And while most nations who wrote down history of their nation, omitted their losses in battle the bible does not.

First off, most of the Bible isn't historical. Some of it is fabricated entirely. Secondly, the reason losses weren't omitted was the religion's need for the "sin" factor. They needed people to believe they were trash, because believing you are trash is useful, rather, necessary for one to hold belief in the religion. If you had worth as you were, you wouldn't need Christianity.

So, the way I see it, is if a person can trust the things that come out of it that can be proven, then it has probable cause to be trusted in areas that cannot be proven.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. You never proved anything leading to this step here. You assumed it was historical. You assumed evo/creation was important in determining Biblical accuracy. You assumed the Bible was more valuable a resource than the more varied and important writings of other cultures. Now, you're assuming that because one thing that was said in the Bible was right, that the rest follow suit. This is fallacious. You have to prove each tenet separately for an argument to hold weight.

Ok, if I understand this correctly, you are just stating that going the extra step to sex- while other lesser homosexual events have already taken place- is not detrimental?
Not saying its not 100% un-detrimental, but yes, I must agree with you there.

See, the thing is. Homosexual is a word, and words can be misapplied, or given the idea that it means something slightly different. The way I see it, the very word homosexual, is used in a way that doesn't make as much sense as it should.

I am of the view that when defining someone as being homosexual, they should be engaging in homosexual ACTS (as mentioned in an earlier post). Not for having Homosexual impulses....sorry if that doesn't make much sense.

If the dictionary is a valid way of defining things, then being gay is the attraction of a member of one sex to another member of his sex. Homosexual acts are irrelevant.

I'll respond to it line by line, but you don't have to respond. If I sound like I'm chiding you, I'm not, I just have a deeply ingrained hatred of religion due to my observation of its effects throughout my life.

I appreciate your honesty and admire your skepticism. And you may be surprised, but I agree with you. Just like I said in the abortion thread, I don't think that the rational members of a given side of an argument should be lumped in with the extremist ones. And I must say that I feel like the same thing has happened with religion, especially Christianity. The funny thing is, Christians are supposed to love one another, yet the clergy supports war. They never give any solid answers on what the bible actually says, and always say "Worship the way you want." "Do what your heart tells you" and so on. Which is utter bullcrap.

Originally Posted by The Federation

Cool, I'm an atheist who has studied for about 6-7 years, and I have come to an anti-theistic position instead. I'm in school to become a molecular biologist, so it's a bit cliché, but it's what I love.

Impressive, and I can see why you came to that conclusion. If you wish to continue with this debate, this should get interesting.

Originally Posted by The Federation

You shouldn't, even in most of its more objective, historical premises. Some of it is accurate in accounting for the time period, but most is useless if the subject is fact.

Evolution v. Creation is not a debate. There are no reputable scientists who support creation as a scientific explanation, and there aren't any open peer-reviewed journals that verify creationist contentions. Furthermore, evolution and creation aren't dichotomous; if evolution was proven wrong today, right now, it wouldn't verify creation. Even if creation was proven, there's no reason to assume it was a Christian God who did the creating.

What I was getting at was that if creation was proven, then the obvious question was "what created it?" And then we would go down the line to the most likely occurrence, where the Bible should be examined to see if that fits the scenario.

Originally Posted by The Federation

Panspermia is an option, which could mean a sentient seeding, but the fact remains that we don't know how life began from non-life. Inserting God where there is no knowledge is the quintessential argument from ignorance, called the "God of the gaps", sliding in mysticism where objective knowledge doesn't exist. Who says aliens, given that hypothesis is true, needed a creator? We still have possible abiogenesis.

Hokay, I get your point about the god of gaps, but the fact is, the inserting of god is not unfounded, as I will get into a bit later. And I would just like to point out "What would be a word for an alien that created life on this earth?(And, if you are implying that an all powerful alien could have just come from nothing, lets take it one step further and say that this all powerful alien had no physical form, what would we call this being?)"

Abiogenesis:
The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

I would also like to point out that, try as they might, no human has ever created life, no matter how small. Yet you are asking me to believe that it happened by a freak accident?

Originally Posted by The Federation

The Quran has things not found in the Bible. Eastern mysticism brought philosophy to a previously knowledge-barren religious plane. The Bible is one of the lesser mystic books when it comes to originality.

Not surprising, seeing as the bible was completed as late as 95 AD and the Quran was compiled about 600 AD. The people who wrote the Quran already had the bible when they wrote it, and as you pointed out that the bible has not much originality (meaning it has many of the same things as other holy books, such as the Quran) who got the idea from whom? The writers of the bible didn't get their ideas from the Quran, simply because it didn't exist yet.

Originally Posted by The Federation

Maybe because it smells really bad. If I were outside in the heat, covering my poop would be natural. There's nothing to suggest they had a clue about bacteria using that passage.

No, but remember, at that time human excrement had other uses, burying it would have been a waste.

In fact, at the time this was written, the Egyptians were using stool for medical purposes...They would mix it with water and put it on their face in hopes of relieving blisters. And Egypt was one of the most advanced races of the time, and they didn't even know to get rid of their crap. Yet the bible clearly states the best way to handle human waste at the time.

Originally Posted by The Federation

You know what the ultimate irony there is? Those quotes were famously utilized to prove the Earth was flat. Stretched out like a circle? Stretched flat over nothing? This is observer's bias, trying to look for things that aren't there.

A fool misinterpreting a fact does not make the fact untrue. And look at it from our point today. Is the earth round? Does it hang on nothing? Did they know these things back then?

Originally Posted by The Federation

First off, most of the Bible isn't historical. Some of it is fabricated entirely.

I'm listening.

Originally Posted by The Federation

Secondly, the reason losses weren't omitted was the religion's need for the "sin" factor. They needed people to believe they were trash, because believing you are trash is useful, rather, necessary for one to hold belief in the religion.

Believing they are trash? No.

There is a difference between keeping something written to to A) be learned from B) use it to rub it in their face.

Originally Posted by The Federation

If the dictionary is a valid way of defining things, then being gay is the attraction of a member of one sex to another member of his sex. Homosexual acts are irrelevant.

*shrug*
If you say so.

#AlphaSapphire

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
If you have a question about my religion, or wish to discuss my religion, the Bible, or anything related to this topic, feel free to PM or VM me, take a look at the information in my profile or visit our official website.

This is relatable to the topic, but I would prefer if we moved it to that sticky called "Tangent Topic" because we actually have something of use to put there. :P

Originally Posted by ansem the wise

Whether or not it should be trusted as to topics such as morality, is another issue.

I would rather argue morality anyway, because historicity is largely irrelevant besides from the common argument that objective morality arises from Jesus's holy sacrifice on the cross and his recurrence in 3 days, where the proponent claims divinity. Other than that, historical accuracy is a side note.

Accident implies agent, chance implies nothing. The chances of spontaneous formation of molecular chains with sequences that call for replication is small, but we have a big Earth, and, in fact, a big universe that we can draw these chances down to nearly 100% with. Every planet in the Goldilocks zone, including ours, had this chance.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lligent_design
The links on the bottom were too hard to copy and paste out, so I linked the wiki instead.

What I was getting at was that if creation was proven, then the obvious question was "what created it?" And then we would go down the line to the most likely occurrence, where the Bible should be examined to see if that fits the scenario.

Yes, but to move on to that step one should probably prove creation first...

Hokay, I get your point about the god of gaps, but the fact is, the inserting of god is not unfounded, as I will get into a bit later. And I would just like to point out "What would be a word for an alien that created life on this earth?(And, if you are implying that an all powerful alien could have just come from nothing, lets take it one step further and say that this all powerful alien had no physical form, what would we call this being?)"

An alien that created life on Earth could be called James or Ooglock or Hoeisil, but the process of seeding life is called panspermia. Assuming the alien had no physical form, I wouldn't consider him an existing thing unless there was a repeatable effect that could be derived from him to prove his existence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
Your own link links to Talk Origins, which is my personal favorite website for biological evidence of life's properties, formation, and continuation of its cycle. Here you'll see the improbability of abiogenesis is often misattributed to a strawman of the position.

I would also like to point out that, try as they might, no human has ever created life, no matter how small. Yet you are asking me to believe that it happened by a freak accident?

The only thing that needs to be accepted is that there's a definite possibility of the formation of life from basic units, to polymers, to replicating units, and so on. You are using anthropic reasoning to describe something that simply isn't on the human scale. Common sense only applies to our own plane, not the micro or macro planes, and so our reasoning is skewed or completely distorted when we attempt to apply it to these planes.

Not surprising, seeing as the bible was completed as late as 95 AD and the Quran was compiled about 600 AD. The people who wrote the Quran already had the bible when they wrote it, and as you pointed out that the bible has not much originality (meaning it has many of the same things as other holy books, such as the Quran) who got the idea from whom? The writers of the bible didn't get their ideas from the Quran, simply because it didn't exist yet.

Or other mythologies and mythological figures, like Mithras, Horus, Heracles, Attis and Zoroaster all share vital traits with Jesus and various biblical accountings of events. The reason the Bible is unoriginal is because it copied texts before it rather than seeding texts that came after it. The Quran prides itself from being an original, non-repeatable scripture, and it largely live up to being "unique" what with it's flying unicorns and whatnot.

No, but remember, at that time human excrement had other uses, burying it would have been a waste.

The Papyrus Ebers was what instructed this use of excrement. Not having access to this "advanced medical knowledge" and instead being disgusted with feces is the reason Mosaic Law advised its burial. In fact, the Egyptian belief in demons is what drew them to use feces for certain illnesses, believing it would make a demon who has any small amount of self respect to leave the body it was assaulting. It was because of how repulsing feces is that it was used in this way, and the followers of Jesus couldn't have known that, so buried it like almost everyone else in that time period. It doesn't have to be revealed through divine revelation that feces is disgusting.

A fool misinterpreting a fact does not make the fact untrue. And look at it from our point today. Is the earth round? Does it hang on nothing? Did they know these things back then?

This was the leading scientific and church-espoused belief of the day. It's all interpretation, and if one passage support the idea that the Earth is flat and round, hanging on nothing or bound by gravitational pull, then it isn't worth talking about in the first place.

I'm listening.

Sodom and Gomorrah may never have existed, and it is some people's root of homophobia. That's one.

Believing they are trash? No.

Believing they are lower tier, perhaps, lesser people. That they are born into sin, and can only escape through one religion. Convenient fabrication if your goal is to keep the mythology alive as long as possible.

There is a difference between keeping something written to to A) be learned from B) use it to rub it in their face.

The whole narrative is meant to demean humans, to make sin a useful convention. It's to be learned from by the followers, to see how gullible and ill-intentioned human are in comparison to the perfect God. If you don't believe in sin and that you are accountable for it, like everyone else in our species, then why acknowledge Christianity as anything but Bronze Age ramblings from delusional followers of a man whose morality was advanced for his time? Why accept any of the mysticism?

Yeah, it's probably a good idea to move this part of the discussion to the TT thread, as religion shouldn't really be a main focus in these discussions, and only distract from a lot of the main issues. I'll update that thread for you guys if you want to use it.

Yeah, it's probably a good idea to move this part of the discussion to the TT thread, as religion shouldn't really be a main focus in these discussions, and only distract from a lot of the main issues. I'll update that thread for you guys if you want to use it.

That'd be great. That is, if Ansem is willing to continue and we develop a working resolution and definition set, of course.

To me the bible is not a good source for morals or trying to find the correct answers to things. If you believe 100% in the bible and it's validity, then you must believe homosexuals deserve to be killed/stoned to death. I mean, that's what it says. Plus in the New Testament it says we simply won't go to heaven. It's actually quite sad to me that people would believe other people deserve to be killed based on such trivial things.

To me the bible is not a good source for morals or trying to find the correct answers to things. If you believe 100% in the bible and it's validity, then you must believe homosexuals deserve to be killed/stoned to death. I mean, that's what it says. Plus in the New Testament it says we simply won't go to heaven. It's actually quite sad to me that people would believe other people deserve to be killed based on such trivial things.

No.
Because you are under the assumption that the Bible says that it condemns homosexuals, ie Those who have an attraction to the same sex. While in reality, it does not. It condemns those who commit homosexual ACTS as I have explained before.

And as to the not going to heaven, that is MOSTLY true. There are a select few who would go, but there is actually an exact number 144,000. Not many by any means. What would happen to the rest of mankind?
Simple, what god intended in the first place. He put Adam and Eve on earth to live forever, and it was because the disobeyed him that they didn't. But he eventually wants to make the earth so that all humans will live forever, and he will do that, after it becomes obvious that humans cannot rule themselves (which, in my opinion, is close).

#AlphaSapphire

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
If you have a question about my religion, or wish to discuss my religion, the Bible, or anything related to this topic, feel free to PM or VM me, take a look at the information in my profile or visit our official website.

I don't really see why people make such a big deal about homosexuality. I guess it's mainly religion being difficult with it. I'd think most non-religious people don't really care if some random person is gay or not... but I could be wrong on this. Gay people don't hurt me or other people anyway. I mean, I'd rather have more gay people in this world than those crazy idiots that continue to fight wars, those who destroy other people's lives or those who waste their time denying other people their right to love. The world could do with some more love... even if it is a kind of love that may seem strange to most (that'd include me).

I don't really see why people make such a big deal about homosexuality. I guess it's mainly religion being difficult with it. I'd think most non-religious people don't really care if some random person is gay or not... but I could be wrong on this. Gay people don't hurt me or other people anyway. I mean, I'd rather have more gay people in this world than those crazy idiots that continue to fight wars, those who destroy other people's lives or those who waste their time denying other people their right to love. The world could do with some more love... even if it is a kind of love that may seem strange to most (that'd include me).

You're implying that all homosexuals oppose war, which is completely false

No.
Because you are under the assumption that the Bible says that it condemns homosexuals, ie Those who have an attraction to the same sex. While in reality, it does not. It condemns those who commit homosexual ACTS as I have explained before.

And as to the not going to heaven, that is MOSTLY true. There are a select few who would go, but there is actually an exact number 144,000. Not many by any means. What would happen to the rest of mankind?
Simple, what god intended in the first place. He put Adam and Eve on earth to live forever, and it was because the disobeyed him that they didn't. But he eventually wants to make the earth so that all humans will live forever, and he will do that, after it becomes obvious that humans cannot rule themselves (which, in my opinion, is close).

Interesting.

You seem to be taking the theories of Thomas Hobbes and watering them down. Same idea, just with "ruler with absolute power" replaced by "God". Other than that, it's much the same. (Especially "humans cannot rule themselves".)

Originally Posted by The Admiral

Which would also break the Fifth Commandment. So not only is it of questionable morality, if you take your morality as exactly that in the Bible, there is a massive series of contradictions.

No.
Because you are under the assumption that the Bible says that it condemns homosexuals, ie Those who have an attraction to the same sex. While in reality, it does not. It condemns those who commit homosexual ACTS as I have explained before.

Well consider the facts. Humans are sexual and social creatures. It is possible to live without either social or sexual contact, but you are not going to be a happy or healthy individual . This is fact. This isn't up for debate. Also masturbation doesn't count as sexual contact.

So your options are either:

1) Have a gay relationship, but that's a sin because the act of being gay is a sin.
2) Have a heterosexual relationship which is unfulfilling and exetremely stressful on everyone invonlved, and could theoretically be considered a lie, which also a sin.
3) Live a life of celibacy which would be bad enough if you chose to do it, it's worse when it's forced upon you. (And if you really have faith, then choosing between sinning and not sinning is not a real choice). So then you would live miserably.

Condeming specifically sexual acts when you're talking about sexual beings is more or less a roundabout way of condeming the person.

Well consider the facts. Humans are sexual and social creatures. It is possible to live without either social or sexual contact, but you are not going to be a happy or healthy individual . This is fact. This isn't up for debate. Also masturbation doesn't count as sexual contact.

So your options are either:

1) Have a gay relationship, but that's a sin because the act of being gay is a sin.
2) Have a heterosexual relationship which is unfulfilling and exetremely stressful on everyone invonlved, and could theoretically be considered a lie, which also a sin.
3) Live a life of celibacy which would be bad enough if you chose to do it, it's worse when it's forced upon you. (And if you really have faith, then choosing between sinning and not sinning is not a real choice). So then you would live miserably.

Condeming specifically sexual acts when you're talking about sexual beings is more or less a roundabout way of condeming the person.

Wasn't going to reply to this, but I would like to point out that:
1) yes that's a sin
2) Homosexuality seems to me to be mostly attraction at first glance. It seems that anyone can "fall in love" with absolutely anyone, just the crooked view of being "homosexual" is that you cannot fall in love with someone of the opposite gender which is simply not true.
3) Not a sin, but I have to agree it would most likely be miserable.

#AlphaSapphire

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
If you have a question about my religion, or wish to discuss my religion, the Bible, or anything related to this topic, feel free to PM or VM me, take a look at the information in my profile or visit our official website.

Wasn't going to reply to this, but I would like to point out that:
1) yes that's a sin
2) Homosexuality seems to me to be mostly attraction at first glance. It seems that anyone can "fall in love" with absolutely anyone, just the crooked view of being "homosexual" is that you cannot fall in love with someone of the opposite gender which is simply not true.
3) Not a sin, but I have to agree it would most likely be miserable.

Give it up, Ansem. The Supreme Court stuck DOMA and Prop. 8 down. Are you gay marriage opponents going to swear to overturn this decision like you did with Roe v. Wade over forty years ago?

If so, I wouldn't get your hopes up. Especially since I do not see a Republican President with the same pre-20th century mindset as Scalia being in charge when a new one has to be appointed. And most of the current ones are getting old.